Larry Holmes Circa 2002 Versus Rocky Marciano Circa 1951

He didnt have an extra foot against the men he was facing ,but he would have against Marciano! That's the point! lol . With the exceptions of Charles and Walcott and possibly Moore.Cooney and Witherspoon would beat all of Marciano's opponents.

 

Norton was 34 and had lost 3 fights in the previous 5 years.2 to Ali ,at least one of which was debateable, and Foreman ,his fight with Holmes was a classic. Nortons,"well out of his prime".but 38 years old Walcott ,who had lost 2 of his last 4 fights is bang in the middle of his! Ditto high mileage 33 years old Charles who had lost 2 of his last 4,and Ancient Archie who had been fighting professionally for 20years!
Give us a break!

 

Norton was out of prime. As was Charles and Walcott. What’s your point? You use these arguments to begrudge Marciano’s record but don’t care to apply the same standards to others.
Archie had lost two fights (one a DQ) in six years and hadn’t lost in four I believe and that one was to Harold Johnson who he revenged several times over. Archie was a better version far more technical than Norton. With more success at HW I might add.

 

I’m not positive Cooney beats Layne. Def think Witherspoon does. Heck old Louis has a chance against both.

 

45 fights, nearly half of them against light heavies.

My point is you make a thing about Norton being past it against Holmes when he put up a great fight ,Fight Of The Year actually yet Walcott and Charles had fought 2 so so bouts and both had lost 2 of their last 4 fights.

Norton had lost to 2 men in the last 5 years ,both Champions one the consensus no1 of all time ,the other a top 10 atg . Both of them would be favourite over Walcott ,Charles, and Marciano.

 

Witherspoon would waste Charles, Walcott and Cooney. I would bet the mortgage on it.

 

Was Norton prime? Yes or no? The answer is no. It’s obvious. Has not thing to do w Charles n Walcott. Norton was still a good fighter but he was a step slower. As both Archie and Marciano were by the time they met. Witherspoon and Cooney are nothing to write home about. Good wins but that’s it just good. Norton even though older was equivalent of Moore who imo was a better fighter. Walcott and Marciano was fight of the year too.

 

Then you are a bonafide moron.

Cooney would destroy Layne. And quickly.

 

Layne > Cooney.

 

Layne had a soft belly Charlie Goldman remarked on it,Marciano targeted it to soften him up and get his hands down for the finish. Layne is inferior to Cooney in every department imo,size ,power, defence, boxing ability.Cooney would rip his belly out!

 

Bwahahaha!

A soft 6 footer who was physically weak, had zero twitch, pedestrian footwork and banked on his will and chin versus one of the finest specimens to ever enter the ranks, a 6-6 giant with insane power, great leverage, solid skills.... Minus the mental trauma/addiction issues, Cooney is the greatest what if in the division's history. Give me 1980 Cooney over any of those slobs and hangers-on from the early 50's.

 

The knob slobbering over Holmes now has people putting Cooney in the ATG arena. Drugs are bad kids.

 

Layne was not the best at training but he certainly wasn’t the worst. He would be considered the leanest fighter of these fat guys today. He had better stamina than Cooney and could box as well as him. Cooney was no fancy fighter. I think his chin was solid enough to take Cooney into the later rounds and either finish him or close decision. The Layne that best Walcott that night beats any version of Cooney imo.